Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What it takes to get banned from FR? (Vanity)
None | Today | CSM

Posted on 11/18/2003 10:20:36 AM PST by CSM

Given the rumors and speculation regarding banning of individuals from FR, I took the suggestion of another poster to start a thread around the topic. I have gone back and reread the rules and the specific speculation of posting to one type of thread or posting one type of article only is not called out as against the rules.

So, outside of the rules, what constitutes being banned or suspended from posting on FR?


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Free Republic Policy/Q&A
KEYWORDS: banning
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141-146 next last
To: bassmaner
All Roscoe ever does is post "cut and pastes" of court rulings justifying WOD excesses, especially with respect to Commerce Clause abuses by the feds. And he never gives his opinion about them - he just automatically contradicts in a "bot"-like manner anything that the anti-WOD side states.

Quite a contrast to the poster whose robotic reply to every statement is "provide evidence for your claim". Yet, when Roscoe does it, he gets crtiticized for it.

81 posted on 11/19/2003 7:17:19 AM PST by Hacksaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: bassmaner; Roscoe
The times I remember Roscoe's "cut and paste" posts were in response to the "The drug laws are unconstitutional" claims. Since this seems to be the common mantra of the pro-legalization crowd, I don't blame him for not typing it in fresh every single time the statement is made.

If people want to state that it is their opinion that the drug laws are unconstitutional, fine. But to state it as fact is disingenuous, and I am grateful to Roscoe for pointing it out.

It saves me the effort.

82 posted on 11/19/2003 7:36:03 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
So presenting your own opinion as fact is bad, but presenting someone else's opinion as fact is good?
83 posted on 11/19/2003 7:39:24 AM PST by tacticalogic (Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Sheesh.

Would you agree there's a big difference between, "tacticalogic is gay" and "In my opinion, tacticalogic is gay"?

That's what I'm referring to.

84 posted on 11/19/2003 7:51:19 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I realize that. I also realize that absent any evidence, you're saying "tacticalogic is gay" carries no more weight than saying "in my opinion tacticalogic is gay".

WRT constitutional issues, Roscoe's was repeatedly asked to express his own opinion, and declined to do so. Instead he would cut and paste other people's opinions, a convenient dodge inasmuch as those people were not available to question as to the basis for those opinions.

85 posted on 11/19/2003 8:06:09 AM PST by tacticalogic (Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: LadyDoc
I have, however, objected to his violent anti homosexual posts, and his anti Catholicism.

I honestly think you are thinking of the wrong person. LeRoy was unapologetically pro-life, so I have a hard time believing he was anti-Catholic. And the hateful speech you describe was simply not his style. Please look back at some old posts and try to figure out who you are thinking of.

86 posted on 11/19/2003 8:09:03 AM PST by jmc813 (Michael Schiavo is a bigger scumbag than Bill Clinton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
Bump to let MrLeroy back aboard! He was NOT a rules violator of any sort as far as I could ever see. I would LOVE to hear from YOU, AM, as to WHY he was either banned or suspended.

| View Replies |
No replies.

Figures.

87 posted on 11/19/2003 8:13:09 AM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (I have opinions of my own - strong opinions - but I don't always agree with them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: LadyDoc
I'm afraid that i have never seen MrLeroy using hateful speach on any thread ... and I talked with him a lot. Please give me a link to where he used that kinda speech as I have never seen it ... thanks
88 posted on 11/19/2003 8:28:03 AM PST by clamper1797 (Conservative by nature ... Republican in Spirit ... Patriot by Heart ... and Anti Liberal BY GOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"I also realize that absent any evidence, you're saying "tacticalogic is gay" carries no more weight than saying "in my opinion tacticalogic is gay".

I disagree.

If a poster says, "tacticalogic is gay", that implies that the poster has evidence, something concrete, that makes him believe it. He is, after all, stating it as fact.

Now, some on this board may question it and ask for proof. But others will just accept it as fact and move on. That's where it becomes disingenuous.

89 posted on 11/19/2003 8:57:19 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
So what is wrong if the proof of that claim is requested? Your post implies that you support Leroy's request to "provide evidence of your claim".
90 posted on 11/19/2003 9:29:05 AM PST by CSM (Stop the MF today!!! (Flurry, 11/06/2003))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Granted. And if someone makes a claim, and is asked to provide the evidence, then it is fair to judge that person's veracity on the quality of the evidence provided. As far as people who will accept such statements without question, all I can say is that from what I have read on the subject, a health skepticism is considered a cornerstone of conservativism, and if these people haven't learned to critically examine and question what they're being told, they need to.
91 posted on 11/19/2003 9:33:06 AM PST by tacticalogic (Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
If people want to state that it is their opinion that the drug laws are unconstitutional, fine. But to state it as fact is disingenuous, and I am grateful to Roscoe for pointing it out.

It saves me the effort.

Actually, I concur. Roscoe always made it clear that what he was offering was his opinion based on law, not on policy. He never debated policy, only law. And he was pretty damn good at it.

92 posted on 11/19/2003 9:57:06 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: CSM
"So what is wrong if the proof of that claim is requested?"

Nothing.

But, as you point out, it was usually only MrLeRoy who requested it (and quite frankly most of the time he requested it simply to see if the poster was able to back up the claim, not because he needed the proof -- an annoyance, really).

Just about everyone on the pro-WOD side lets these "but it's unconstitutional" claims slip on by. Or they take the initiative and post the truth themselves.

93 posted on 11/19/2003 10:20:49 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Or they take the initiative and post the truth themselves.

I have yet to see such "truth" that will withstand scrutiny based on an "enduring document" view of the Constitution.

94 posted on 11/19/2003 10:37:33 AM PST by tacticalogic (Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"But, as you point out, it was usually only MrLeRoy who requested it (and quite frankly most of the time he requested it simply to see if the poster was able to back up the claim, not because he needed the proof -- an annoyance, really)."

Yep, and at least one other person wanted to see that proof of the claims (me, in most cases anyway). Now that he has been banned those requests are not going to stop. Is the main benefit of the ban the fact that those making the claims will no longer be annoyed by having to prove their claims?
95 posted on 11/19/2003 1:24:31 PM PST by CSM (Stop the MF today!!! (Flurry, 11/06/2003))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: CSM
Well, I guess he's handed off the "provide evidence for your claim" torch to you. Seems to me as though you're interested in arriving at the truth of the matter.

Unlike MrLeRoy, I assume that from a purely educational standpoint you're equally interested in the source of the claims made by both sides of the drug argument?

96 posted on 11/19/2003 2:10:18 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: jmc813; Roscoe
Is Roscoe gone?

I gained a whole new respect for him on the Arnold threads.

97 posted on 11/19/2003 4:08:51 PM PST by Gianni (Stupid people suck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
Kind of what I expected in one way, basically just the usual suspects responding. I do feel kind of let down in another way...I don't see any posts by "the coach", "goddess" or "groob".

Why the big push to reinstate him? He's already been back at least three times.

98 posted on 11/19/2003 4:09:10 PM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Gianni; Roscoe
Is Roscoe gone?

I haven't seen him in a while.

I gained a whole new respect for him on the Arnold threads.

You're not the only one. He's definitely one of the "good guys". Here's hoping he returns.

99 posted on 11/19/2003 9:43:59 PM PST by jmc813 (Michael Schiavo is a bigger scumbag than Bill Clinton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
nope, I know this leroy...

he got so hateful in one post that I quoted the bible from Peter saying that you should explain plainly and clearly what you believe, and he didn't even recognize the quote.

Most people only read certain posts...I'm sure some of his posts are good, or else he has changed in the past 12 months, but his language has been outside the bounds of polite discussion in the past...
100 posted on 11/20/2003 4:58:34 AM PST by LadyDoc (liberals only love politcially correct poor people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141-146 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson